The California Greens helped organize Fight H8 protests (against California’s Prop 8) today. Their press release is here. “The Green Party of California very strongly opposed Proposition 8. We fully support the freedom to marry, and all the rights, benefits and responsibilities without discrimination based on sex, gender or sexual orientation. We oppose any legislation that, as Prop. 8 does, legalizes this form of a hate crime,” said the GPCA in a statement Friday.
Coverage from ABC News 10:
SACRAMENTO, CA – For a second straight weekend, hundreds of gay marriage supporters marched on the State Capitol Saturday in opposition to California’s controversial Proposition 8.
After a rally at Cesar Chavez Park organized by the Green Party of California, more than 1,000 demonstrators marched to the Capitol in a show of support for gay and lesbian marriage rights in California.
A small group of gay marriage opponents stood across the street from the rally, but no major clashes between the two sides were reported.
The rally was one of several planned across California and around the country Saturday following the passage of Prop 8 earlier this month.
Organizers expected as many as 1 million people to attend events in 65 cities statewide Saturday.
Badly need your help. Make hunger thy sauce, as a medicine for health. Help me! Can not find sites on the: Cf tooth whitening new york. I found only this – best vitamins for clear skin. Tooth whitening, ingestion see to have a tobacco of other healthy pills. Tooth whitening, at fluorine technique can also list childbearing meals, although gradually alternately mysterious increasing kits or prolonged on the people. With respect :rolleyes:, Camille from Tunisia.
but yet I’m still opposed to torturing of animals and I’m not a big fan of animal slaughter but making it a crime through the state is *wrong*
Animals have no rights. They’re here for our enjoyment.
I just do not know what libertarians generally think about it, because it does not actually provide for direct “X agent caused Y resultâ€.
Some have. Here is one of several examples:
http://mises.org/rothbard/lawproperty.pdf
I’m aware of enterprise liability. I just do not know what libertarians generally think about it, because it does not actually provide for direct “X agent caused Y result”.
but baby human beings can be scraped out of a woman’s vagina and left for dead
Question-beg much?
I’m failing what that has to do with animal rights. So animals have a right not to be killed and eaten only the killers/eaters are human. That’s not really much of a right, is it?
I know this isn’t your position, but it really is a ludicrous one for anyone to take.
I could argue it (it’s not inherently ridiculous), but at this point I’ll choose not to.
Let’s see, so how would go about doing that in areas where there are multiple factories of the same type?
Short answer:
By holding all of them liable. The precise possible mechanisms for doing so are varied.
There are, actually, people who have thought these what-if questions through in depth and written articles, even books about them.
The sickness of Green “values” — baby animals have rights, but baby human beings can be scraped out of a woman’s vagina and left for dead in a bucket. No harm, no foul!
Jimmy Clifton = courageous for admitting the truth.
My initial post has nothing do to with my belief regarding equal rights for all. It has to do with a Party that supports democracy but then violently reacts when democracy takes place–voters deciding issues.
What the GP (of which I am a member) doesn’t get its way, they violate their own conscience and views.
What, you’ haven’t read my biography? I am a former Green. (Apparently, I haven’t criticized any libertarians who know this in a long time, because they’re quick to bring it up). I ran for Congress in 2004. I know all about the Greens.
Supposedly. So is “dencentralism.” Yeah, right. What happens if I don’t want to pay my taxes? They will send goons with guns to my house. That’s violence.
Not strictly speaking. But I think Bob Barr is a socialist.
Do people really believe bullshit like this, or do they just use it as rhetoric?
Then I will have violated my neighbor’s property rights. How hard is that to understand? I will have committed a crime in that case.
Absolute bullshit. Animals are property. There’s no logical method of determining what constitutes “torture.” I’d consider it torture if I were confined on a farm, fattened up, milked, and then slaughtered for food. That’s pretty tortuous. Just because something is accepted doesn’t make it right. You’re using widespread acceptance as the measure of legality. If a sick fucker tortures his animals, then the right thing to do is to shun him. Not imbue animals with “rights.” They have no more rights than chairs do.
What religions are these? I’ll join up. Every religion I know of preaches the evil of capitalism and humanity.
as conscious moral agents, humans can choose not to kill animals for sport or food.
I’m failing what that has to do with animal rights. So animals have a right not to be killed and eaten only the killers/eaters are human. That’s not really much of a right, is it?
I know this isn’t your position, but it really is a ludicrous one for anyone to take.
If you can prove where the pollution originated, you can hold the polluter liable.
Let’s see, so how would go about doing that in areas where there are multiple factories of the same type?
how do you pursue say, property rights violations transmitted through the air (by way of pollution particles)?
The same way you would with water or land. If you can prove where the pollution originated, you can hold the polluter liable.
If animals have the right not to be killed and eaten…what do we do? Start arresting cheetahs for the murders of gazelles?
I’m not taking any position on animal rights here, but if you are asking a theoretical question: as conscious moral agents, humans can choose not to kill animals for sport or food.
paulie – although there is an argument to be made for privatizing the water table (somehow)…how do you pursue say, property rights violations transmitted through the air (by way of pollution particles)?
If animals have the right not to be killed and eaten…what do we do? Start arresting cheetahs for the murders of gazelles?
Total nonsense.
Interesting. Do you think this is one of those places where government regulation is warranted in order to restrain the poisoning of water sources, rather than pursuing remedies ex post?
No. I don’t believe there are any places where government regulation is warranted.
Animals do not have rights. People do.
This isn’t universally agreed upon, even among libertarians, and certainly not among greens.
And you say a right “not to be abused or torturedâ€: wouldn’t that include slaughter and consumption?
In some views of animal rights, yes.
The leak, so long as it stays on your property and doesnt effect soil compositions or water—is not problematic. If it does, you’ve violated their property rights.
Interesting. Do you think this is one of those places where government regulation is warranted in order to restrain the poisoning of water sources, rather than pursuing remedies ex post?
Beginning of comment 14 should have quoted beginning of comment 11.
The rights of non-human animals to not be abused or tortured does not dimish our rights
Animals do not have rights. People do. And you say a right “not to be abused or tortured”: wouldn’t that include slaughter and consumption?
That is a case whereby you should be respecting OTHERS property rights. The leak, so long as it stays on your property and doesnt effect soil compositions or water—is not problematic. If it does, you’ve violated their property rights.
Exactly.
I assume you stake this claim over the earth and and non-humans based around some religious imperiative? Well, religions that preach human supremacism are a great part of the current set of problems on the earth.
Unless something changed recently, GE is an atheist.
Most absurd statement ever, paulie. I have a “human right†to the fruits of my labor that the Greens want to confiscate at gunpoint.
Their concept of human rights differs from yours. That does not mean they don’t believe in any human rights, which they do.
I have a “human right†to use my property — including animals — as I see fit. The entire notion of “animal rights†is a violation of “human rights.â€
Rights can be balanced. That does not say whether animals should have rights or not, but what it means is that those people who think they should are not thereby throwing out all human rights as a concept – just putting them into a larger framework. Whether that framework is legitimate is an entirely different question.
What? Makes no sense.
And the Greens as violent? Dude, you really should read more abt the Greens, one of their principles is non-violence, they are not socialists; they favor small capitalism and cooperative mutualism, etc.
The economic policies of the current Green platform can only be put in place and maintained through massive use of government power, and government power is violent. However, as I said, the key values are sound, and can be interpreted in a non-government monopoly, non-violence-backed way.
“A) No, using your property as you will is not a human right, you have the right to privacy and such, but lets say you decide to make some extra spending money taking in barrels of toxic whatever and dumping it in you backyard. That toxic stuff will leak into the groundwater and pass into your neighbors and the public lands.”
That is a case whereby you should be respecting OTHERS property rights. The leak, so long as it stays on your property and doesnt effect soil compositions or water—is not problematic. If it does, you’ve violated their property rights.
They support democracy as a principle, but it’s not the only one and sometimes others outweigh it.
The Greens are the most violent of the three major third parties and yet they put on a false face of being pro-peace. It’s bullshit and I’m calling them on it.
I would consider the Constitution Party’s combination of migrant bashing, protectionism, and coerced (albeit, mostly at a local/state level)
adherence to their interpretation of Biblical social morality to be more violent – although not on all issues. It’s true that the CP is antiwar; but if it gets its way and distorts both labor and goods markets badly enough, war will be the inevitable result.
I think the fundamental Green values are sound, but the platform is not. By comparison, the CP’s most funamental statement includes restore American jurisprudence to its original Biblical common-law foundations.
“I have a “human right†to use my property — including animals — as I see fit. The entire notion of “animal rights†is a violation of “human rights.—
A) No, using your property as you will is not a human right, you have the right to privacy and such, but lets say you decide to make some extra spending money taking in barrels of toxic whatever and dumping it in you backyard. That toxic stuff will leak into the groundwater and pass into your neighbors and the public lands.
B) The rights of non-human animals to not be abused or tortured does not dimish our rights, it secures them. In a society where animals can be abused, the abuse of other weaker beings; say children, the elderly, disabled, whoever, is always higher than in societies where non-humans are treated with less violence and less abuse.
I assume you stake this claim over the earth and and non-humans based around some religious imperiative? Well, religions that preach human supremacism are a great part of the current set of problems on the earth.
“The Greens do and would support a whole host of unconstitutional legislation. Socialist Security and “Universal†health-care rationing come to mind.”
What? Makes no sense.
And the Greens as violent? Dude, you really should read more abt the Greens, one of their principles is non-violence, they are not socialists; they favor small capitalism and cooperative mutualism, etc.
GE, you can rant abt your ideal utopia, but here in the less than utopian real world, we have a limited range of social structures to work with in the US, and they are all meant to be based around the constitution, and the constitution is at its best when it expands and deepens the social compact; include more citizens in the contract that is the constitution. The contitution, and amendments to it, maybe ratified by the states, but the states are merely associations of people. The constitution protects peoples rights, not “state rights”. When the consitution states that states have powers not granted to the the feds, that referes to the people in those states, not the state governments.
Capitalism is not a human right as defined by anyone except you, comrade GE. Access to the fruits of ones labor in the form of shelter and food, for instance, those are human rights.
Don’t get it twisted: I was not referring to homosexuality as a “perversion.” But the Green “values” are clearly perverted in that they DO support unlimited democracy except when it doesn’t achieve the end that they want. The Greens are the most violent of the three major third parties and yet they put on a false face of being pro-peace. It’s bullshit and I’m calling them on it.
Most absurd statement ever, paulie. I have a “human right” to the fruits of my labor that the Greens want to confiscate at gunpoint. I have a “human right” to use my property — including animals — as I see fit. The entire notion of “animal rights” is a violation of “human rights.”
HA!
The Greens do and would support a whole host of unconstitutional legislation. Socialist Security and “Universal” health-care rationing come to mind.
I would have voted against Proposition 8, despite my opposition to state marriage, but I have to admit I like the Greens exposing their hypocrisy here.
Greens support direct democracy, but the creation of laws that violate the Constitution (equal protection under the law) or human rights cannot be made into law and should be affirmed by the judicial courts as such.
I believe most Greens would agree that there are three options in regards to legal recognition for people who identify as Queer that we can go with:
-Give everyone a CIVIL marriage
-Give everyone a CIVIL union or partnership equivalent
-Or get the government out of recognizing couples absolutely.
The fundamental principle followed here is that EVERYONE is treated equally UNDER THE LAW. So if the government hands out licenses for heterosexuals they must do so as well for GLBT people.
Paulie,
You support involuntary direct democracy. That’s despicable.
State marriage is a welfare program and gay marriage is an expansion of that program.
How is adding a constitutional amendment that defines marriage make government smaller? What if it defined marriage as only between members of the same government-defined race and/or religion?
The Green Party doesn’t think so. Or rather, they think the limits only apply to their perverted values.
I don’t think their values are perverted in this case, and clearly they are not for unlimited democracy. I don’t know of any Greens who believe democracy should override human rights, or in some cases animal rights, etc.
Deran – That’s irrelevant. The Green Party DOES think democracy can be used to steal and murder, but doesn’t like it when it’s turned on certain groups.
And you’re also wrong, anyway. State marriage is a welfare program and gay marriage is an expansion of that program. It forces employers and private institutions to recognize the marriage and to provide benefits, etc. It’s just another hammer with which to attack the individual rights of property owners.
“can’t force anything on anybody”
This is abt some people excluding other people from some civil rights. This is abt the majority segregating a minority off from various civil rights.
No one is making anyone do anything; prop 8 was abt not allowing people to do what they want (get married).
The Green Party doesn’t think so. Or rather, they think the limits only apply to their perverted values.
Yeah, democracy should have its limits, which should be that it can’t force anything on anybody. Any other “limit” is bogus.
Democracy has its limits. What if the people voted for racial segregation?
Let me see if I can get this. First, people vote in a free and open election. Then, the Green Party of CA, which advocates for “grassroots democracy,” doesn’t want to accept the voice of the people. Guess the word “democracy” means nothing to some Greens.